Sergey Brin: Traditional Operating Systems “Torturing Users”

Because of Google I/O going full-steam ahead, it’s a bit of a Google thing going on here. Google co-founder Sergey Brin had a little chat with the press about the Chromebooks Google announced yesterday, and during that talk, he stated that traditional PC operating systems are “torturing users” with their complexity. While he certainly has a point, I’m not sure I like his solution. Giving Google all my files? Yeah… No.

Google’s Chrome OS is most certainly less complex to manage (and potentially to use, time will tell) than, say, a traditional Windows, Linux, or Mac OS X machine, but I’m not sure handing over all my data to Google is a price I’m willing to pay for a reduction in complexity. With Sony’s epic privacy fail with the Playstation Network still affecting millions of users around the world, I think even many less technically inclined computer users are starting to see the dangers in storing your data on the internet.

Anywho, Brin. “I don’t think there is anything inherently wrong with Windows. Windows 7 has some great security features,” Brin said, “With Microsoft, and other operating system vendors, I think the complexity of managing your computer is really torturing users. It’s torturing everyone in this room. It’s a flawed model fundamentally. Chromebooks are a new model that doesn’t put the burden of managing the computer on yourself.”

I like the foolproof features Google has managed to shove into Chrome OS, and I’m certainly hoping Microsoft and Apple are exploring similar ideas for Windows and Mac OS X. However, I’m not happy with the idea of shoving all my data onto the web. As someone very rightfully pointed out in our story on Google’s internet music service and locker – what’s stopping shady organisations like the RIAA and MPAA from forcing Google to hand over data on the music files you stored there? Music ripped from your own legally bought CDs could get you in court.

And that’s just looking at it from the normal user’s perspective. What about corporate use? Brin may claim that businesses could move 75% of their users to Chrome OS, but what about all the sensitive corporate data these people use? Are they supposed to just hand all that over to Google?

So, yes, I applaud Google’s attempts to make computers easier to manage and more fool proof, but I think these improvements should be added to the old-fashioned model of computing where I get to decide if I want to upload any data to anyone. Can you imagine what data criminals could get if Google ever got Sony’d?

107 Comments

Why, because a someone wants to make things easier for those who aren’t technologically obsessed? There’s a difference between “dumbing down” and “making it easier”, and it amazes me how many in technology refuse to admit that’s even possible.

We used to compile everything ourselves, now most of us use package installers, not because we’re dumber, because it’s a more efficient use of our time.

We use content management systems to write our blogs, rather than hand code HTML. Does that make us dumber? We write code in C instead of assembler, does that make us dumber? We develop web applications in ASP/PHP/Ruby on Rails instead of C, does that make us dumber?

Of course not. It makes us more efficient. We’re able to spend less time on stuff that doesn’t really matter to get stuff done that does matter.

In Douglas Adam’s “How To Stop Worrying and Learn to Love the Internet” he quotes computer scientist Brian Ferran: “Technology is stuff that doesn’t work yet.” Right now, for most people, technology doesn’t work. And while I don’t quite buy into his solution, I think he’s right when he says desktops are torturing users.

Just because something is easy for you, doesn’t mean it’s easy. There’s a difference between “easy” and “familiar”.

Why, because a someone wants to make things easier for those who aren’t technologically obsessed?

No. It’s because calling something like having a Windows PC as a torturous experience is really over the top and just plain old idiotic.

None of the people I know for example do not find it in any way or form torturous: if there’s something they don’t understand they ask someone, and about managing their computers: well, gee, they don’t manage them. Of course they SHOULD do it, but as people often do they just ignore the things they don’t know about, and if they ignore it how can it be torturous?

Of the previously mentioned people they only find their experience mildly “torturous” when they’ve got a malware infection, not before, so that kind of shoots Brin’s claims down. Not to mention the fact that with a firewall and antivirus you can avoid most viruses, and that “Chromebooks” won’t be somehow magically completely invulnerable to infections either.

Why, because a someone wants to make things easier for those who aren’t technologically obsessed?

No. It’s because calling something like having a Windows PC as a torturous experience is really over the top and just plain old idiotic.

None of the people I know for example do not find it in any way or form torturous: if there’s something they don’t understand they ask someone, and about managing their computers: well, gee, they don’t manage them. Of course they SHOULD do it, but as people often do they just ignore the things they don’t know about, and if they ignore it how can it be torturous?

Of the previously mentioned people they only find their experience mildly “torturous” when they’ve got a malware infection, not before, so that kind of shoots Brin’s claims down. Not to mention the fact that with a firewall and antivirus you can avoid most viruses, and that “Chromebooks” won’t be somehow magically completely invulnerable to infections either. [/q]

Torturous might be a bit of an exaggeration, but the point is that Windows is overly complicated for what it does, and with that complexity comes lots of problems. How many times have you seen a program crash an a window pops up saying “Windows is searching for a solution”. I’ve yet to see it ever find a solution. Every now and then I can’t print from Word. I don’t know why.

I’m a power user. I’m a network instructor and author, and Windows bugs me to no end. It’s not that I can’t deal with the problems that crop up with Windows, it’s that I don’t want to.

It sounds like the people you know are power users. Maybe they enjoy troubleshooting. I’m long since the point where I enjoy finding the solution to a desktop problem. I’m much more interested in diagnosing a network problem for an enterprise customer or researching fibre channel performance than figuring out why the hell Word won’t print.

The average consumer is different than you or I. They just want a tool. I’m becoming more like them in the desktop and mobile area. I want a tool, not a hobby. I’ve got work and play to do, and diagnosing Windows issues (and Linux desktop issues for that matter). Mac OS X is the least troublesome so far, but I wouldn’t mind it getting simpler.

If digging around a desktop is your idea of fun, I’m happy with that. But don’t deride people who would rather get things done.

If someone comes along with a simpler way to do something, why is that not a good thing? Why is that not a great thing?

How many times have you seen a program crash an a window pops up saying “Windows is searching for a solution”.

Not many. And besides, it will happen on Chromebooks too.

It sounds like the people you know are power users.

No, they aren’t. I’m the only power-user among my family and friends, everyone else barely knows how to turn their PC on and off.

If someone comes along with a simpler way to do something, why is that not a good thing? Why is that not a great thing?

You’re barking up the wrong tree. I never said it’s not a good thing. But Chromebook simply isn’t an all-encompassing solution and will not be able to replace regular PCs for many — or even most — people.

How many times have you seen a program crash an a window pops up saying “Windows is searching for a solution”.

Not many. And besides, it will happen on Chromebooks too.

Applications will crash, but it won’t add that unnecessary and worthless step of “searching for a solution”. A prime example of unneeded complexity that Windows adds that provides no useful function.

It sounds like the people you know are power users.

No, they aren’t. I’m the only power-user among my family and friends, everyone else barely knows how to turn their PC on and off.

If someone comes along with a simpler way to do something, why is that not a good thing? Why is that not a great thing?

You’re barking up the wrong tree. I never said it’s not a good thing. But Chromebook simply isn’t an all-encompassing solution and will not be able to replace regular PCs for many — or even most — people.

Perhaps Chrome isn’t it, but the way we interact with computers is changing. The days of WIMP (Windows, Icons, Mouse, Pointer) are numbered. We’ve been using it for the past 25ish years, and while it was great for the time and got us where we are today, it’s not the future.

HP is going to be releasing WebOS with every consumer PC they sell next year. iPads are phenomenally successful, and Android tablets are becoming more so. They can’t quite replace a desktop yet, but soon we’ll have desktops that are slightly souped up tablets with a keyboard.

Things are changing. Some will need the extra flexibility of a traditional desktop OS. They will likely be the minority.

Perhaps Chrome isn’t it, but the way we interact with computers is changing. The days of WIMP (Windows, Icons, Mouse, Pointer) are numbered.

I think you meant to say “the way YOU interact with computers is changing”. Not everyone is happy with touch-screens and tablets/smart-phones. Of all the people I know only 1 of them has a tablet, and most of the time it’s stuck in a corner under his computer desk while he uses the desktop PC. Regrets buying it he said!

Perhaps Chrome isn’t it, but the way we interact with computers is changing. The days of WIMP (Windows, Icons, Mouse, Pointer) are numbered.

I think you meant to say “the way YOU interact with computers is changing”. Not everyone is happy with touch-screens and tablets/smart-phones. Of all the people I know only 1 of them has a tablet, and most of the time it’s stuck in a corner under his computer desk while he uses the desktop PC. Regrets buying it he said!

No. The author was right to generalise and say the way “we” interact with computers is changing. Check some sales numbers from the past few years and see which segments are growing and which are declining.

And, no offence, but I doubt all the people you know would qualify as statistically significant in this context :p

And who mentioned sales figures and statistics? I certainly didn’t. Again I will quote the “YOU” in place of “WE”. I for one am quite happy with a mouse and keyboard thank you very much, if you prefer touch-screens and other technologies fair play to you and others who do, but don’t impose a “WE” on those of us who don’t!

And who mentioned sales figures and statistics? I certainly didn’t. Again I will quote the “YOU” in place of “WE”. I for one am quite happy with a mouse and keyboard thank you very much, if you prefer touch-screens and other technologies fair play to you and others who do, but don’t impose a “WE” on those of us who don’t!

Some people don’t have hands and can’t use a mouse. Some people are clinically retarded and wouldn’t know what the box with moving pictures is for.

By we, he means most computer literate people. And you will be one of them, just like GUI became the norm and we use it. And I am sure, that there were a lot of people that liked working with console only…

And who mentioned sales figures and statistics? I certainly didn’t. Again I will quote the “YOU” in place of “WE”. I for one am quite happy with a mouse and keyboard thank you very much, if you prefer touch-screens and other technologies fair play to you and others who do, but don’t impose a “WE” on those of us who don’t!

It’s called a generalisation. In a generalisation there are exceptions (e.g. you). If there would not be exceptions it would not be a generalisation (it would be a truth). Sales figures support this generalisation.

You are the one using “we” based on your own experiences. I am basing the “we” on a much larger sample size (that of sales statistics).

Why, because a someone wants to make things easier for those who aren’t technologically obsessed?

No. It’s because calling something like having a Windows PC as a torturous experience is really over the top and just plain old idiotic.

None of the people I know for example do not find it in any way or form torturous: if there’s something they don’t understand they ask someone, and about managing their computers: well, gee, they don’t manage them. Of course they SHOULD do it, but as people often do they just ignore the things they don’t know about, and if they ignore it how can it be torturous?

Of the previously mentioned people they only find their experience mildly “torturous” when they’ve got a malware infection, not before, so that kind of shoots Brin’s claims down. Not to mention the fact that with a firewall and antivirus you can avoid most viruses, and that “Chromebooks” won’t be somehow magically completely invulnerable to infections either. [/q]

Yeah and they ignore it long enough until the problem get serious enough that they have to do something about it. My parents do this all the time. Reading forums, asking people for help, wondering if their data will be lost – all torturous to my parents, trust me. And my parents are likely representative of the biggest “group” of computer users.

And considering how often Windows PCs run by ignorant/lazy people get malware, this actually supports Brin’s claims.

What Brin is saying is not idiotic, it is ambitious. The computer, the king of automated calculation, and for some reason we don’t program it well enough to look after itself? We need to manage such arbitrary bullshit like virus’s and malware. The burden should never ever be on the user – or at least this should be the goal.

The famous saying was “technology is stuff that doesn’t work yet”. People like my parents, don’t want to use technology. They want to check their emails and facebook. Anything else is a burden for them.

Assuming the critisism is against making things easier for users itself is rather short sighted.

The OS itself is interesting. It’s a new twist on the classic thinclient/mainframe model. The terminal breaks, turn it off, turn on a new one, log in and resume computering.

Here’s the things to consider though:

– Is user data stored in such a way that only the user can access it? No third party access possible even by Google insider staff, no master decryption key? Is the connection encrypted end to end? No clear text step at any stage of the chain between your terminal and your data store? No “I forgot my password” back door for guessing attacks to obtain the decryption key or user passwords? No “it’s to fight terrorism/childporn/”war-on”-du-jour” loophole? Will Google happily hand over data to any requesting government? The US gov’s war on liberty? China’s war on free thought? Internat laws imposed by middle eastern nations? Will the user still be able to access there data legally when in these countries even if proper strong encryption is implemented?

(Note; Skype is illegal to use in China and your Cisco VPN probably won’t work when traveling in the middle east. Be careful where you use Truecrypt and PGP also.)

– For businesses, is there an appliance available which allows companies to retain control and centralized storage of there data within there own networks rather than relying on a third party service provider with no real vested interest in the safety of the data and possibly with more vested interest in data analysis of other’s information? What information security assurances do businesses have and what recorse is available when an breach occures?

Some IT folk may be expressing purely emotional based critisisms but don’t maket he mistake of thinking that there are not very good reasons.

Dumber right now? no. “Dumber” down the line? It’s a distinct possibility. At the least the balance of control shifts from the user to the third parties the user becomes increasingly reliant on. One would also suspect the number of allowed choices gets closer to zero.

Also, what happens when those “things that don’t really matter” do matter and no one remembers how to do them?

Thom, your thoughts on this mirror mine exactly. I’m all for easier computing for the masses, but Google is already well known for giving our information away to govenments without a warrant, and of course as you brought up there’s the issue of what an incredible treasure trove of info is just waiting to be hacked.

Even beyond the data paranoia, vendor lock in is never a good thing. I’d be much more excited about Chrome OS if the server side tools were open source. This simply isn’t a good thing for the tech ecosystem unless we can use this technology without relying completely on one company. What if Google decides they don’t feel like keeping the servers going anymore, what would happen then? Probably exactly what happened when Microsoft turned off the lights at Danger.

So if a business starts moving most/all of their data onto servers in the cloud that just happened to get Amazon’d, then the entire company is left sitting with a finger up their ass for a day or three, unable to access any of that data.

I’m sure you have evidence indicating that Google is infact a CIA front rather than an incorporated business?

A US company bound by US law and requried to comply with legally submitted requests for information, sure.

A front organization setup by cliandistine siloetted profile pictures for the purpose of domestic spying? Pulease. Take the tinfoil hat off and go out in the sunlight once in a while. Even Robert Steel’s Spy Improve talks don’t go as far into left field as your claim apears.

Users are torturing Google by not giving them all their documents and not centering their universe on Google’s servers. Google wants to make itself the critical path for everything — and thus become the weakest link. No thanks, Brin. I like the autonomy of having my own machine and deciding where/when my data moves anywhere.

Users torture themselves by assuming it’s possible to use a tool effectively without even attempting to understand how it works and how to use it.

Obviously you might say “Well, they don’t want to be computer experts, they just want to write an email”. Too bad. No one thinks that it’s OK to not learn to drive properly just because people “just want to go places, not become driving experts”.

Considering the costs of identity theft, data loss, etc, there are real consequences to this refusal to learn. Sure, operating systems implementors can help out, but if you expect them to solve the problem, let me ask you: How’s that worked out so far?

I’m sure that you realize that people have data of other people, like their email address and other more sensitive data.

Also, being part of a botnet is almost always being part of malicious actions to other people.

And that is why Chrome OS was conceived – people don’t want to monitor their antivirus software, get infected and their PCs become part of a botnet. Having a completely externally maintained device results in no malware.

People don’t kill innocent bystanders because they suck at writing email.

And this is the only reason government regulation hasn’t stepped in already…

People who don’t want to learn how cars work have alternatives – buses, trains, taxis etc. And this is what Google seeks to do, create a system for people who don’t care how computers work and just want to do basic things that today are done using complicated computers…

Computers were designed by geeks for geeks, the average user should not need to worry about keeping software up to date, should not need to worry about malware, firewalls, video codecs etc.. They should have a simple system that provides them access to the data they want with the minimum of fuss.

Leave complicated operating systems to the geeks who can understand how to use them.

Users torture themselves by assuming it’s possible to use a tool effectively without even attempting to understand how it works and how to use it.

Obviously you might say “Well, they don’t want to be computer experts, they just want to write an email”. Too bad. No one thinks that it’s OK to not learn to drive properly just because people “just want to go places, not become driving experts”.

Considering how many people are crap at driving and die as a result(you know that with identity theft you don’t loose your life, don’t you?), they should be required to be driving experts.

But, what you are saying that people become mechanics before they start driving.

I think that basic computer programming has to be mandatory in schools in the near future, since computers are everywhere. But design for simplicity, to have a lot of things that you don’t worry about, is a good thing.

Technically, there is no reason a netflix client won’t run on a Linux or BSD based distro. The netflix set top boxes run a Linux distro. I believe the Wii also run a *nix distro under the hood and it has a netflix client. Not sure what OS the PS3 is running but it’s not Windows or osX and it also has a netflix client.

Developers have already said outright that they’ll work for free with Netflix to get a client working and we’re talking people with professional code skills.

Netflix has consistantly said there will not be a netflix client for general purpose distributions. A big part of the issue is the silverlight DRM it relies on which is controled by Microsoft rather than Netflix. The DRM being released for opens source implementation or even licensed as a non-free bundle for general purpose distributions has about as much chance of happening as the sun going Nova in the next six hours.

Other than the obsurd hit one’s monthly ISP caps would take, a netflix client for general purpose *nix platforms would be more than welcome by many but it would take enough market share for Netflix to really take notice and probably enough reduction in Microsoft’s market share to force them to start grasping for straws to maintain shareholder dividends.

It is rather dangerous to keep private data on a computer. Computer could be stollen.

Maybe private cloud is the solution, but i dont want to manage my cloud either.

But iPad somehow solves this. It has lokal storage and pain-free management. Nothing prohibits having local storage in chrome-like system. It would just benefit users, when they, for example, want to take movie to watch during flight.

Exactly my reason for mentioning all the cleartext versions. The all have an encrypted version which is very easy to implement. Why on earth are we still transferring websites, files, email and the rest of it unencrypted?

To single out web pages, why are sites like osnews and techrepublic still asking for login in clear text? All websites really should be implementing https as the default with a fallback to http. Any page with a form field should default to https with no fall back. Yet, here we are still making a habit of connecting to webservers in cleartext.

Because a certificate from a CA is too expensive? 50$ a year.. woopty, the hosting and management can cost more than that yet it still gets done. Really, we should be finding ways to validate certificates without the third party racket of certificate authorities who really don’t live up to the validating part of there service or charge exorbitant fees for more trust worthy certs (which still end up having backdoors in them by design or policy).

The other protocols I mentioned have even less business still using cleartext. Clear email from client to server and server to server? Why?

I look forward to the day when I open my network sniffer and can only tell what the protocol is and it’s source and destination without nice clear payload packets to read.

I understood everything save for how exactly iPads are supposed to solve this problem. They can be stolen and compromised like any other computer out there. I’d even argue that since they are so thin and light, it’s even easier to steal them.

It is rather dangerous to keep private data on a computer. Computer could be stollen.

But iPad somehow solves this.

I don’t understand you. An iPad is several times easier to steal than a desktop PC or even a laptop, and there’s heaps and bounds of private data stored there. iPad’s do not store everything in the cloud and as such they do not “solve” this in any way or form.

It is rather dangerous to keep private data on a computer. Computer could be stollen.

But iPad somehow solves this.

I don’t understand you. An iPad is several times easier to steal than a desktop PC or even a laptop, and there’s heaps and bounds of private data stored there. iPad’s do not store everything in the cloud and as such they do not “solve” this in any way or form.

Right, two different statements. I completely agree that traditional OSs torture users. But the root case is not a local storage. iPad is much easier to use, but it does uses local storage. And I would add some local storage to Chrome as well.

Another statement was that local storage is not much safer, comparing with cloud, if you have sensitive personal data. If they are encrypted, you can keep them locally or in cloud, it does not matter.

Brin is right on this point. Comments by others are trying or are confused by mixing with other issues like security, privacy, cloud services, IPs and a host of other things. Just stay focus and you will agree.

“I like the foolproof features Google has managed to shove into Chrome OS, and I’m certainly hoping Microsoft and Apple are exploring similar ideas for Windows and Mac OS X”

I suspect Apple is already doing this via iOS. Many design elements of iPad apps seem to be creeping into their desktop counterparts. I would not be surprised if Apple release a desktop version of iOS in the near future. A bit like Launcher or Simple Finder.

The difference is your data won’t be handed over to Apple…. or will it ..

“Chromebooks” might become somewhat popular as appliances, similar to how iPad et. al. are, but as a desktop PC or even a laptop PC replacement? Nope, there’s still too many things people won’t be able to do on a “Chromebook” and thus they’ll still need to have a full-fledged PC to do the heavy lifting with. And thus they’ll still have to do with “managing their computers” themselves. A “Chromebook” simply will not be some magical panacea that will cure all people and thus trying to sell it as such is either ignorance or false marketing.

One example of an activity that simply isn’t feasible on a “Chromebook” and one that is still very popular among the general populace would be editing and creating home videos: you need local storage and more beef than what “Chromebooks” offer to do that. The ever growing number of videos on Youtube that people create is all the proof you need.

I add more: he has discovered hot water. People thinks windows pc are good because they are never seen a good computer.

I remember 20 years ago Amiga 3000. It booted in LESS than a second and than you had a complete desktop with local applications and games (and it has 1MB of ram not 1GB). Oh and btw it just worked (no drivers problems, no updates needed, etc.)

Now the industry can only tell me that you can choose is only a computer that boots in a minute and will have problems (windows) or a chromebook that boots in only 6 seconds (ONLY???? compare this to amiga 3000… 6 times slower) but it has no applications….

I remember 20 years ago Amiga 3000. It booted in LESS than a second and than you had a complete desktop with local applications and games (and it has 1MB of ram not 1GB). Oh and btw it just worked (no drivers problems, no updates needed, etc.)

Uhh, Amiga had a pre-defined set of hardware. It always had a specific motherboard, specific memory modules and so on. Windows and all other modern OSes on the other hand have to function with literally billions of different hardware combinations.

Not to mention the fact that Amiga didn’t have any memory protections, DEP, etc. etc., and didn’t do file-sharing, Internet and so on out-of-the-box..

In other words you’re just displaying your own ignorance with comments like that. Of course it would be easy to boot into such a limited OS in seconds if you always had the same hardware.

And lets not forget that a big part of the OS was in ROM, so no time spent in loading the system from the floppies/hard disk.

And so what? Is there a law that forbid pc and OS makers to not use ROM? Or a flash? Or a compact flash? or an SSD? Oh yes now explain me because windows on a 250mb/sec SSD is slower in booting than an amiga 3000 with a rom (with a bandwith less than a modern SSD) and a scsi hard disk that did 2mb/sec of transfer rate…

But of course, there’s even legitimate reasons why it’s so big. Windows ships with thousands of drivers already included on the installation media itself so that it doesn’t have to download it all from the Internet and that is obviously going to take its toll. And some driver manufacturers just happen to be god damn horrible in their practices and can’t make lean code even if their lives depended on it. Like for example HP printer drivers themselves apparently take several hundreds of megabytes and the only way Microsoft could shave off on the size would be to rewrite the drivers from scratch with more talented coders, and HP obviously isn’t going to let them do that, they want people to rely on them for their drivers.

A modern linux distro has far more drivers than windows xp, and yet uses less space to install…

A modern linux distro comes with a large suite of applications, whereas windows ships with a handful of very crude applications most of which are designed to upsell you to bigger applications…

A single linux install also has support for multiple languages, whereas windows has separate versions for different language support…

The bloat is largely down to legacy cruft, for each library function in windows there are often several versions retained for backwards compatibility… Not only does this increase bloat, but massively increases complexity which is part of the reason why so many security holes are regularly found in windows… Simple is better from a security perspective.

In other words you’re just displaying your own ignorance with comments like that. Of course it would be easy to boot into such a limited OS in seconds if you always had the same hardware.

My little lamer I suppose that you do not understand that chromeos notebooks are based on same hardware and they need 6 seconds to boot. Also Macs have a limited set of hardware carefully chosen by Apple and they are slower to boot. So stay with your Windows, mix it with your ignorance and shut up.

Personal insults are a sure-fire way of making you look mature, insightful and worth noting, right?

I for sure want more from the money I spend on modern OSes.

All you’ve been doing here has been complaining and comparing a 20 years old OS with about 1% of the features of a modern OS to a modern one, and you ignore all the features and all and instead just focus on boot speed… So, let’s throw out all the 99% of features, shave the OS down to Windows 3.0 level, and then you’ll be happy because it boots fast?

All you’ve been doing here has been complaining and comparing a 20 years old OS with about 1% of the features of a modern OS to a modern one, and you ignore all the features and all and instead just focus on boot speed… So, let’s throw out all the 99% of features, shave the OS down to Windows 3.0 level, and then you’ll be happy because it boots fast?

Windows 3.0 was released in 1990, the same year as AmigaOS 2.0 and the Amiga 3000.

Windows 3.0 was already very slow and bloated, and did not compare favourably to AmigaOS 2.0 at all.

AmigaOS still booted faster than windows 3.0, even when windows was running on considerably faster hardware.

AmigaOS could support up to 4GB of address space.. Windows 3.0 could only support 16mb i believe.

AmigaOS was a standalone OS, windows 3.0 relied on dos.

AmigaOS had hardware accelerated video, windows 3.0 didn’t.

Neither system had memory protection, DEP or anything of the sort.

Neither system had networking support out of the box.

Incidentally, how many of the new “features” do you use on a daily basis? A slimmed down OS would actually be far better for most things people do… Take a look at AROS, it’s a clone of AmigaOS 3.0 ported to modern hardware with a few things added (eg tcp/ip stack by default), its capable of running modern apps like web browsers and playing high definition video, while still being blisteringly fast.

Ever notice how you can logon to your bank and see all your accounts, transaction history, personal information… yet no one throws a fit?

For a variety of reasons that industry has ‘earned’ the trust of people when it comes to storing personal information.

Google and other companies simply have to gain our trust on that same level. I don’t think it’s impossible either. It’s just a matter of the right regulations, SLA’s, technology improvements (client side encryption), maybe a few lawsuits when breaches occur…

Give it some time… there was a time I didn’t trust online mail… now I only use online mail.

The difference is that the bank needs to have that information in order to provide their services and there is no way to get those services without trusting a third party. I would certainly prefer a bank account where my bank did not know the details of my transactions, but excepting possibly some cryptographic money scheme no one has implemented in the real world, that is not possible.

I am okay with GMail for a similar reason: my mail provider is going to see all of my mail anyway, so they might as well let me view it from a web browser.

On the other hand, I do not need a third party to hold my documents. That said, there is no reason why ChromeOS necessarily has to be used with Google’s services (well, I guess when running Google’s firmware it will install any updates Google pushes, but simply trusting a different key would fix that). The idea of using a highly portable device as a thin client to servers under my control (or, more realistically, under the control of the company which owns the devices) could make sense for a lot of users. Unfortunately, there is no open source equivalent of Google Docs and, as far as I know, Google isn’t selling private Google Docs servers.

Ever notice how you can logon to your bank and see all your accounts, transaction history, personal information… yet no one throws a fit?

Ever notice how you can log in to your Google account and see your Google account details? Seriously.

The reason you see those details when logging in to your bank is because…you logged in to the bank. It’s the nature of the business you do with them that they have the actual information that pertains to that business. It has nothing to with trust.

For a variety of reasons that industry has ‘earned’ the trust of people when it comes to storing personal information.

I don’t think anyone trusts banks any more than they trust google. As in your example, you entrust different entities with different information but you generally don’t entrust your google details to your bank, your details with bank A to bank B or your bank details to google.

This would be very interesting for business of Google ever started selling a network appliance companies could keep within there own network and which did not tunnel information back to google in the background.

An onsite appliance managed by the company that owns the data.. very interesting indeed. A Google hosted server managed by a third party with no direct interest in protecting your data.. hell no.

This whole ‘moving the applications and data to the cloud’ just makes my blood boil. We’ve been there before, you know – ‘cloud’ is just another word for server and this is just a rehash of the original model of computing. But I am old enough to remember when PCs started to appear, and how excited we were precisely BECAUSE they allowed us to move applications and data away from remote servers controlled by the chosen few right to our desktop for users to manage and control as they wanted. Believe it or not, it was a revolution in IT: the arrival of personal computing.

And now we’re not only supposed to give it up, but to believe this is something new, and it is better for us? Being in charge of my own stuff is supposed to be torture now? I think not! Reading this sort of nonsense does get pretty painful after a while though

Heh yeah. We really do not want to return to the server and dumb client days, please NO! Trouble is, that’s the way things are heading. An interesting point is most folk I talk to whom run Windows, run it because they are gamers not for anything else. If Microsoft decided to follow this route how many users would decide to change OS’s because they considered Windows useless for their needs? I don’t think Microsoft would let that happen but then again, they made some stupid moves in the past!

The difference between the current era of computing and the pre cloud era, is quite straight forward. Back then, and I’m talking about when the movement was from client/server within business and education to personal computing – we didn’t have multiple devices to manage our data on. That simple. Heck, we essentially didn’t have any to manage. We as consumers, are using more and more devices as technology expands. Hence the expansion of networking technologies, and hence ‘The Cloud’ for consumers.

The chromebook is just a natural progression of course ..if google didn’t do it, someone else would have. As to whether you agree with it’s implementation or not, it’s a simple choice. Trust, or don’t trust. But for me, the ultimate implementation would be a choice of what exactly, and how much of my particular data I choose to not be local.

Dropbox is a good example for myself. I choose exactly what I want to sync to the cloud, and choose what I think is too sensitive ..and back that up myself. The question is, can people with no technical ability make that correct choice, while knowing how to keep all their data safe ?

WIndows will be on top for a long time. Its one thing for people to use tablets and alternative OS’s for personal use, but for actually accomplishing tasks and making your business more productive, you’ll have a hard time getting people away from Windows.

Allot of companies out there still use office 2003, and windows XP, because it meets their needs. Unless these new systems can make people more productive, and give them a good reason to spend thousands on a new design, they’ll simply be another fad, kinda like tablets…

The statement only apply to entities (i.e. human users, organisations) that does not view information (or data) as critical part of its function but only one of the tools available.

Outsourcing IT administration to a third party is actually a common practice internationally, the point divergent is that the degree one outsources and availability for the client (and vendor) to handle service maladjustments that are not controllable.

Likewise, Google also pointed one harsh fact that technology is increasing the demand for organisations to keep abreast. IT administrators and integrators are far too specialised into their fields to be deployed as permanent in-house fixture, especially for small business and where IT availability (and as competitive advantage) is not important.

But of course for the lay-users who know nothing about intellectual property and privacy leaks (look at facebook). Giving them a complex OS solves nothing, people still pirate windows, browsing webpages on outdated internet browser, they are still on facebook, talking crap on forums as if there’s an illusion of anonymity… I’d say something simple and foolproof serves better for the long term.

Only more technical demanding users will appreciate something called “More > advanced options” at the bottom right hand corner of the screen.

I can certainly see that there is a problem here. In essence, Microsoft has a monopoly on eSadism, today. Other eSadists should have a chance to torture users in new and innovative ways. And eMasochists should be free to seek out new masochistic experiences without having to give up the familiar pain points which have become staples (no pun intended) in their lives.

I have an idea, let’s torture Serghei. Let’s tie him to a chair, in front of a desktop. Or better yet, let’s tie him to a chair in front of a Chromebook and tell him to do some coding stuff. Or any other stuff beside browsing the web and playing with the marvelous google docs.